User talk:Mx. Granger: Difference between revisions
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Mentorship panel question |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Mx. Granger/Archives/2024) (bot |
||
(149 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) | |||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== Question from [[User: |
== Question from [[User:Lawrence.Marsh|Lawrence.Marsh]] (14:23, 16 December 2024) == |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
:Hi [[User:Pesch06|Pesch06]], thanks for the message. There are two main ways to start drafts: [[Wikipedia:User pages|userspace]] drafts and the [[Wikipedia:Drafts|draft namespace]]. So if you wanted to start a draft for an article about "XYZ County", you could start it in your userspace at a title like [[User:Pesch06/XYZ County]] or [[User:Pesch06/sandbox]], or you could start it at [[Draft:XYZ County]] (of course substitute the name of the topic you actually want to write about). Let me know if you have any follow-up questions! —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 14:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Sounds good, now what is my userspace? I get that it's somehow linked to my account, but what is it used for? Creating new articles? [[User:Pesch06|Pesch06]] ([[User talk:Pesch06|talk]]) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Your userspace consists of your userpage ([[User:Pesch06]]) and any pages starting with "User:Pesch06", then a slash, and then something else. You're generally free to use them as you see fit, within reason, to help you contribute to the encyclopedia. People often use them to introduce themselves, talk about their work on the wiki, start drafts of articles, and gather links and information to help with their editing. For example, my userspace includes [[User:Mx. Granger]] (some basic information about me and what I do on Wikipedia), [[User:Mx. Granger/sandbox]] (which I use for testing technical features), [[User:Mx. Granger/Photo program]] (a short Python program I wrote that other editors might find useful), and a few pages like [[User:Mx. Granger/suggestions]] related to other technical features. You can find a lot more information about userspace pages here: [[Wikipedia:User pages]]. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I hope this message finds you well. I recently made updates to my draft article for Lawrence C. Marsh, addressing the feedback provided during the initial review, including adding more reliable third-party references and ensuring the content meets notability guidelines. |
|||
== Question from [[User:Liyema Mathole|Liyema Mathole]] (19:58, 7 May 2024) == |
|||
The updated draft has been resubmitted for review, but I wanted to check if there’s anything further I can do to expedite the process or improve its chances of approval. Are there additional steps you’d recommend to strengthen the article further? |
|||
Can I make my own article --[[User:Liyema Mathole|Liyema Mathole]] ([[User talk:Liyema Mathole|talk]]) 19:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | :Hi [[User: |
||
Thank you for your time and assistance, and I appreciate any guidance you can provide. |
|||
== Question from [[User:Blepbob|Blepbob]] (11:27, 8 May 2024) == |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
:Hi [[User:Lawrence.Marsh|Lawrence.Marsh]], thanks for the message. In order to improve the draft's chances of approval, I would suggest improving the sourcing. I notice that some of the cited sources don't actually support the claims they are supposed to. For example, the sentence that begins "Marsh collaborated with his graduate student..." is followed by a citation to the Google Scholar homepage. That homepage doesn't say anything about Marsh, so it's not a source for any claim about who he collaborated with. Instead, you should cite a source that actually confirms the claim in the article. Linking to a search engine, and expecting the reader to guess what to search for, is not adequate. Similarly, the citation after "followed by the College of Wooster for his bachelor’s degree" just goes to the College of Wooster website and doesn't confirm that Marsh was a student there. The New York Times source for Nyack Boys School does not seem to mention Marsh either. |
|||
:I don't think the draft shows much evidence of notability. Generally, the best way to demonstrate [[WP:Notability|notability]] is through significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. In this draft, I don't see anything like that. I only see sources that don't mention the subject, sources written by the subject, and sources from organizations that the subject is closely affiliated with. I recommend finding independent reliable sources that discuss Marsh in detail – for example, newspaper profiles or biographical works. |
|||
⚫ | |||
== Question from [[User:Medicomonk|Medicomonk]] on [[Battle of Gwalior (1754)]] (10:21, 18 December 2024) == |
|||
I've tried a few tasks and have been wondering if my edits are any good. How often or rarely should I expect feedback (both on newcomer tasks and other articles)? Is there a group of editors who actively review newcomer edits, or is it a matter of waiting a few weeks/months/(years?) for another editor who happens to be interested in that page? |
|||
⚫ | |||
The Easy newcomer task queue sometimes recommended me articles I'd already tried (out of a pool of about 1500 articles). How regularly does that pool of suggestions get replenished? |
|||
⚫ | :Hi [[User:Medicomonk|Medicomonk]], thanks for the message. Start editing the article, and find the wikitext that generates the reference (in the source editor, it will probably look something like <code><nowiki><ref>{{ ... }}</ref></nowiki></code>). Delete that wikitext, and save the changes. Give that a try, and let me know if you still have trouble. —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 15:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
||
==Disambiguation link notification for December 21 == |
|||
Some of those articles seem to have gotten multiple passes from other newcomers. Am I likely to be suggested a task some previous editor already fixed, that happens to have a stale maintenance template? |
|||
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited [[Oakland Heritage Alliance]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Rockridge]]. |
|||
Sorry if that's a lot of questions, but I guess generally they're all the same question about how often articles get reviewed. --[[User:Blepbob|Blepbob]] ([[User talk:Blepbob|talk]]) 11:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi [[User:Blepbob|Blepbob]], thanks for the message. Those are good questions. There's no systematic process for reviewing newcomers' edits to existing articles. Some users monitor [[Special:RecentChanges]] to look for new edits that might be cause for concern, and other users keep an eye on articles that they're interested in using a [[Help:Watchlist|watchlist]], so those work as an inconsistent, informal review. If someone objects to an edit you make, they might undo it or start a talk page discussion, and if someone is grateful for an especially good edit, they might send you a "thank" notification or leave you a message to thank you for it. But most edits won't garner any feedback, either because no one noticed them, or because everyone who looked at them thought the edits looked good and didn't need any response. |
|||
:I'm not sure how often the list of easy tasks gets replenished, and it's certainly possible for you to get a suggestion that someone else has already fixed, where the maintenance template just hasn't been removed. I encourage you to branch out into other tasks besides the designated newcomer tasks – improving articles you're interested in, or browsing maintenance categories to find articles that need work (for instance, subcategories of [[:Category:Wikipedia article cleanup]], especially [[:Category:Wikipedia articles with sourcing issues]]). |
|||
:I've looked over a few of your edits and they generally look good to me. I do have one concern about the source you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dial_(measurement)&diff=prev&oldid=1222788143 added] to the second paragraph of the [[Dial (measurement)]] article. I've skimmed the source, and it seems to mention that digital measuring devices can be used instead of analog dials, but I don't see support for the claim in the article that "analog dials are often simulated from digital measurements". The source seems to be focused on digital devices that give "a direct numeric output" instead of simulating a dial. Of course I might be missing something – what do you think? —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 14:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It's helpful to know that the lack of feedback is a cautiously good sign. I'll keep that in mind! I guess it's also because the newcomer suggestion articles are a bit obscure and also uncontroversial. I imagine it gets more difficult to edit articles about conflicts or current events. |
|||
::I'll definitely try branching out when I have time. Those maintenance categories look useful. |
|||
::That's a good point about the [[Dial (measurement)|Dial]] citation. It's really more for the first half of the sentence, as an example of electronic designs replacing purely mechanical designs. I wasn't able to find a source about the reasoning behind simulating a dial. The educational resources I found were mostly instructional manuals or academic papers about improved electronic designs. I've moved the citation earlier in the sentence, so maybe another editor can find a citation that better matches the second half? |
|||
::I also saw that someone updated the template for [[Dial (measurement)|Dial]] from "Unreferenced" to "More sources needed". I wasn't sure about the etiquette of removing a maintenance template so I'm glad another editor was on it. |
|||
::Thanks for the answer and for looking over my edits! [[User:Blepbob|Blepbob]] ([[User talk:Blepbob|talk]]) 13:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | : |
||
([[User:DPL bot|Opt-out instructions]].) --[[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 19:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Question from [[User:Obedit|Obedit]] (08:49, 28 May 2024) == |
|||
== Santa Claus - Just "man" or "white man"? == |
|||
what kind of benefit i will be able to gahter by editing a article? --[[User:Obedit|Obedit]] ([[User talk:Obedit|talk]]) 08:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi [[User:Obedit|Obedit]], thanks for the message. When I edit articles, I get a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from helping people around the world access information. It also feels good to be part of a community working together for a shared purpose. |
|||
:In terms of tangible benefits, we're volunteers here – there's usually no form of payment or compensation for editing articles. Some active editors put Wikipedia on their resumes as a form of volunteer work, but I think for most of us the main benefit is the feeling of satisfaction from sharing knowledge with the world. You can find a list of other reasons to contribute here: [[Wikipedia:Why to contribute#List of reasons]]. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions! —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 15:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hello Granger, I would like to know why you've reverted my changes on [[Santa Claus]] stressing that he is depicted as "a caucasian man with a long white beard", considering that is it exactly how he is represented and not just "man"? Assuming that the term "man" can be resumed as a "default white man" is something acceptable considering that he is not depicted otherwise is quite morally questionable in 2024. Also, I apologise for failing to find what is "a bit more complicated than that; please see details", like you tried to explain on reverting my changes. |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
Best regards, [[User:Tty666|Tty666]] ([[User talk:Tty666|talk]]) 17:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Light skin#rfc_B00FAFC|'''Talk:Light skin'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 09:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Santa mugs at Target.jpg|thumb]] |
|||
:Hi [[User:Tty666|Tty666]], Santa's race varies by depiction and is a subject of controversy in some quarters. While Santa is depicted as white more often than as any other race, this is not a consistent part of his depiction the way the red hat and white beard are, and it is easy to find depictions of Santa as black. In [[Santa Claus#Appearance]], this is currently summarized as follows: "Though most often portrayed as [[white people|white]], Santa is also depicted as [[black people|black]] or of other races. His race or colour is sometimes a subject of controversy." —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 18:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Question from [[User: |
== Question from [[User:Wekibeki|Wekibeki]] (02:20, 27 December 2024) == |
||
Hi Max! I created a new page using the sandbox, but it still does not appear on Wikipedia. Do you know what I should do? --[[User:Wekibeki|Wekibeki]] ([[User talk:Wekibeki|talk]]) 02:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi |
|||
Would like some guidance regarding publishing new article. |
|||
⚫ |
Latest revision as of 17:25, 27 December 2024
Please leave a . |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Question from Lawrence.Marsh (14:23, 16 December 2024)
[edit]Hi Mx. Granger,
I hope this message finds you well. I recently made updates to my draft article for Lawrence C. Marsh, addressing the feedback provided during the initial review, including adding more reliable third-party references and ensuring the content meets notability guidelines.
The updated draft has been resubmitted for review, but I wanted to check if there’s anything further I can do to expedite the process or improve its chances of approval. Are there additional steps you’d recommend to strengthen the article further?
Thank you for your time and assistance, and I appreciate any guidance you can provide.
Thanks --Lawrence.Marsh (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Lawrence.Marsh, thanks for the message. In order to improve the draft's chances of approval, I would suggest improving the sourcing. I notice that some of the cited sources don't actually support the claims they are supposed to. For example, the sentence that begins "Marsh collaborated with his graduate student..." is followed by a citation to the Google Scholar homepage. That homepage doesn't say anything about Marsh, so it's not a source for any claim about who he collaborated with. Instead, you should cite a source that actually confirms the claim in the article. Linking to a search engine, and expecting the reader to guess what to search for, is not adequate. Similarly, the citation after "followed by the College of Wooster for his bachelor’s degree" just goes to the College of Wooster website and doesn't confirm that Marsh was a student there. The New York Times source for Nyack Boys School does not seem to mention Marsh either.
- I don't think the draft shows much evidence of notability. Generally, the best way to demonstrate notability is through significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. In this draft, I don't see anything like that. I only see sources that don't mention the subject, sources written by the subject, and sources from organizations that the subject is closely affiliated with. I recommend finding independent reliable sources that discuss Marsh in detail – for example, newspaper profiles or biographical works.
- I hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Question from Medicomonk on Battle of Gwalior (1754) (10:21, 18 December 2024)
[edit]Hello how can i delete the wrong reference --Medicomonk (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Medicomonk, thanks for the message. Start editing the article, and find the wikitext that generates the reference (in the source editor, it will probably look something like
<ref>{{ ... }}</ref>
). Delete that wikitext, and save the changes. Give that a try, and let me know if you still have trouble. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 21
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oakland Heritage Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rockridge.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Santa Claus - Just "man" or "white man"?
[edit]Hello Granger, I would like to know why you've reverted my changes on Santa Claus stressing that he is depicted as "a caucasian man with a long white beard", considering that is it exactly how he is represented and not just "man"? Assuming that the term "man" can be resumed as a "default white man" is something acceptable considering that he is not depicted otherwise is quite morally questionable in 2024. Also, I apologise for failing to find what is "a bit more complicated than that; please see details", like you tried to explain on reverting my changes.
Best regards, Tty666 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Tty666, Santa's race varies by depiction and is a subject of controversy in some quarters. While Santa is depicted as white more often than as any other race, this is not a consistent part of his depiction the way the red hat and white beard are, and it is easy to find depictions of Santa as black. In Santa Claus#Appearance, this is currently summarized as follows: "Though most often portrayed as white, Santa is also depicted as black or of other races. His race or colour is sometimes a subject of controversy." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Max! I created a new page using the sandbox, but it still does not appear on Wikipedia. Do you know what I should do? --Wekibeki (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)